Free Will and Uncaused Causes

Given the overwhelming consensus that our universe at some point began to exist, there would seem to be three explanations for its existence:

1. The universe had no cause.
2. The universe had a cause, which was impersonal.
3. The universe had a cause, which was personal.

Although there are some who may disagree (and I welcome your disagreements in the comment section), I believe the first explanation can be convincingly ruled out using the Kalam cosmological argument. This argument is widely employed by followers of the major monotheistic religions. It can be presented as follows:

– Whatever begins to exist has a cause
– The universe began to exist
– Therefore, the universe has a cause

In order to serve as a valid explanation, this cause must itself be uncaused (or at least trace its origins to a cause that was uncaused). Hence, we have the definition of God as the Prime Mover. The first domino in the chain. And this is where religious and non-religious individuals often reach an impasse. “If God caused the universe to exist,” the skeptic asks, “then what caused God to exist?” To the non-religious, defining God as a Prime Mover seems like special pleading – an attempt to dodge the implications of turtles all the way down.

As I was thinking about this issue the other day, I realized that much of this debate might actually stem from one’s views on free will.

DISCLAIMER: I’m a scientist, not a philosopher. The following is my own amateurish speculation, so I welcome your feedback and criticism. I’ll update the post if I learn something new.

Anyway, it would seem that the belief in free will actually entails the belief in uncaused causes. Those of us who accept the idea of free will believe that human consciousness stems from an interaction between the brain (a physical entity) and the soul (a non-physical entity). Our thoughts and actions are not simply the inevitable byproduct of physical events in the brain. When I decide to purchase chocolate ice cream, this decision is influenced by a variety of tangible factors (it’s 90°F outside; my parents served me ice cream as a child; etc.). Yet the decision is ultimately a byproduct of my free will, which generates the decision in a non-physical manner. This can be (clumsily) described as an “uncaused cause”, which would be unique to creatures possessing a will.

Given a belief in free will, we have grounds for believing that a timeless and spaceless Entity, possessing will, could indeed fill the role of Prime Mover. This Entity – God – provides the ontologically prior “cause” for the universe. This leads us to conclude option 3: “the universe had a cause, which was personal”.

For the determinist, free will is an illusion. All of our thoughts and actions are the inevitable result of physical events. Given this view, it makes sense to ask the question, “If God caused the universe to exist, then what caused God to exist?” The entire concept of a Prime Mover seems preposterous, because the determinist has no precedent for believing in uncaused causes.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Free Will and Uncaused Causes

  1. Christian though I be… I sometimes wonder if it’s really air-tight to argue that the universe must have had a cause. I’m not sure – every event in our universe has a cause. But you can certain imagine some universe in which that was not the case, in which things “just happened”. So – must the existence of our universe itself, then, have a cause? Or could our whole universe be an uncaused event, say, taking place in a larger domain in which causal laws do not hold?

    • I don’t know that it’s really air-tight, but the argument seems awfully compelling. I’m having quite a bit of trouble imagining a larger domain in which causal laws don’t hold. It’s effectively hypothesizing an explanation that itself, by definition, defies explanation.

      I’ll have to think about this some more…

  2. Anyway, it would seem that the belief in free will actually entails the belief in uncaused causes

    You’re implying in this statement what you argue for later, that there is an ultimate Uncaused Cause obviously. Are you also saying that we are, in a sense, uncaused causes when we make free choice? Sounds like libertarian free-will there. In that sense I think it’s better to say “undetermined,” not “uncaused,” because to be undetermined doesn’t necessarily mean to be uncaused.

    • I think that’s closer to what I was trying to say, yes. I don’t really buy the idea that free will involves “uncaused causes” in the purest sense; obviously our very existence is “caused”, so even our free choices are in some way a derivative of that cause. I was struggling with how to convey this, though, as you might have gathered from this sentence: “This can be (clumsily) described as an ‘uncaused cause’…”

      I tend to fall somewhere in between the Calvinist and Arminian perspectives on free will, for what it’s worth.

    • My post on The Big Splash is about multiverses, to some extent. There is no reason to not consider the idea that we may live in only one of bazillions of universes. If we consider all ‘theories’ as worth equal value with regard to warrant for investigation, then a multiverse or many of them is as possible as a creator deity supernatural being.

      It is well to note that there is evidence, slight as it might now be, that we do live in a multiverse or a universe which expands and collapses endlessly (or at least endlessly in our time reference model). What does not exist is evidence for the creator god theory.

      Given all that, it is more likely that there is no creator deity god. Further, the logic of whether we live in a simulation vs. a created real universe is favorable to the simulation and not the creator deity.

      After posting about The Big Splash, I won’t even comment on the flaws of limiting the origin of what we call the universe to only two possibilities.

      I do not find it startling that the universe is as it is, that the laws of physics are as they are. I, myself, could not find them any other way. Life and evolution demand this to be the case. We have evolved to exist in the small bubble of the universe that is the crusty surface of this ONE planet. Lack of knowledge does not imply a god. The god hypothesis has no predictive capability, no useful meaning to life or its continuation on this planet. It has always been, and remains, a poor explanation for what is not understood about the world around us. Nothing about the world around us implies god did it except uninformed humans. This should be a much bigger clue than it is taken to be by most.

    • “Given all that, it is more likely that there is no creator deity god. Further, the logic of whether we live in a simulation vs. a created real universe is favorable to the simulation and not the creator deity.”

      Maybe I’m missing something here, but wouldn’t a simulated universe *also* imply that the simulation has a Designer?

  3. WL Craig makes this argument and I see it as a failure. The statement that what begins to exist has a cause is clearly not provable. What causes each snowflake? Each blade of grass? Each grain of sand? You may well be happy to go all the way back through the chain of events and point to what you believe to be a god, but that is simply where you stopped analyzing and gave up, preferring to simply call everything before that point ‘god’. None of the analysis shows the hand of a supernatural deity of any kind, never mind your specific version. This leap of logic into the world of blind faith ruins anything else you have to posit on the question.

    We don’t even have to address free will. Can there exist a supernatural being capable of creating our universe, or what we know of it? You cannot say that you know and this makes the presupposition that there is a god false for it is unprovable and therefore irrelevant. The universe exists, we exist. Nothing more can be truthfully said. Currently we can trace the chain of events back to a rapid expansion of energy/mass some 14.5 billion years ago. Beyond that we know nothing and all scientific ‘endeavors’ and theories do not lend themselves easily to becoming proof of supernatural beings. Indeed, the experts on such matters are generally quite happy to say that what we do know of the universe clearly does not require a creator god to create it as we know it today. It can very well happen on it’s own according to the very laws that govern this universe.

    Without the need to question free will, the universe can exist exactly as it does today without a guiding hand from a creator god. To state that your creator god then must have created the big bang event is presupposition without evidence or reason to believe that such a being exists or even can exist. Knowledge of what was before the big bang event is sparse and unproven, but none of it points to a supernatural being. Any claim of such a being is simple hubris in the form of wishful thinking.

    Of course, if you have proof that supernatural beings can exist, do share. Many want to see that evidence.

    • “Without the need to question free will, the universe can exist exactly as it does today without a guiding hand from a creator god.”

      I could approach this a number of ways, but let me start by asking how you account for the (apparently) finely-tuned physical constants that allow the universe – and life as we know it – to exist?

    • I believe that Author Douglas Adams has a brilliant analysis on this:

      “Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there’s plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that’s a very dangerous thing to say. ”

      The universe is not so much ‘fine tuned’ as we are evolved to fit into what ever tuning state it happens to be in. There is no issue of fine tuning, it is as it is and we exist as we do because it is as it is. It is not a case that we exist at all because of the parameters of the universe, only that life exists as it we know it to be because that is what life looks like in a universe whose parameters are the same as this universe. We have evolved to fit the universe, the universe was not designed to fit us. So very much of it is dramatically inhospitable to human life, even on this very planet. To say that the universe was designed for us is laughable – we can barely survive on this planet as it is.

    • I’ve linked to some good articles on this topic under the “Evidence for Christianity” tab at the top of the blog.

      One important consideration that your quote doesn’t adequately address is the fact that the fundamental physical constants I refer to (mass of electron, gravitational force, etc.) – if selected randomly – would overwhelmingly result in a universe that either instantly re-collapses, or expands far too rapidly for stars/planets to form.

      The startling fact isn’t that the constants are tweaked to produce a universe exactly like ours. The startling fact is that the constants are tweaked to produce a universe with anything in it at all.

      There are really only two possibilities (that I’m aware of) which could account for the existence of our universe, with its finely-tuned parameters. There either has to be a designer or a multiverse.

      Do you believe in the multiverse?

    • You may well be happy to go all the way back through the chain of events and point to what you believe to be a god, but that is simply where you stopped analyzing and gave up, preferring to simply call everything before that point ‘god’.

      Not so. The KCA argues that 1) the universe had a beginning, and 2) every thing that begins to exist has a cause, it then infers the nature of the cause that started the universe. There is no need to go further back because 1) there can be no prior cause to a timeless cause and 2) we do not need to infer more than one cause since one is enough. Theists don’t arbitrarily stop at God.

      To state that your creator god then must have created the big bang event is presupposition without evidence or reason to believe that such a being exists or even can exist.

      Matt was reasoning to that position. He was not presupposing anything or giving no evidence.

      Also, what do you mean by “proof?”

    • “It is well to note that there is evidence, slight as it might now be, that we do live in a multiverse or a universe which expands and collapses endlessly (or at least endlessly in our time reference model). What does not exist is evidence for the creator god theory.”

      I’m interested in hearing more about the evidence for a multiverse, and how it’s superior to evidence for a Creator God. Evidence for a Creator God *does* exist…you just might not personally find it convincing. Such evidence includes the Moral Argument, transcendental arguments, arguments from religious experience, historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ, etc. Again, I’ve linked to some good resources in my “Evidence for Christianity” tab.

      “Further, the logic of whether we live in a simulation vs. a created real universe is favorable to the simulation and not the creator deity.”

      Could you explain this as well?

    • @Matt

      The simulation argument needs no help from me: http://www.simulation-argument.com/ The case for multiverses is well argued by those more qualified than I: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe

      On your evidence page you mention WLCraig and Neil Shenvi. I have posted on why WLC’s KCA does not work due to presuppositions etc. I have argued with Shenvi till he had nothing to say but ‘welll, it’s what I believe’

      None of what you have posted as evidence for the existence of a god and your Jesus in particular have been enough to convince Jews or Muslims to change their minds. It is not convincing and neither does it address the original question: For what reason should even begin to believe that gods can exist. Your evidence page is full of argument that presupposes that a god can exist but never supports this except to say that your god does exist and here is the evidence for that this. The evidence is unconvincing and does not act as strong evidence that gods can exist nor explain why we would use god(s) as explanations for observed phenomena.

      Sagan’s invisible dragon, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Invisible pink unicorns are argument that possess all the facts that you have for your god, yet we have no reason to begin thinking any of them can exist.

      Do you, for instance, believe there is any reason to even begin thinking that invisible pink unicorns can exist? What if I can show you an ancient manuscript that details an encounter with an invisible pink unicorn in which 3172 people were saved from a tidal wave through intervention by the invisible pink unicorn? Would that be enough to make you think they could exist?

      Why is it that you began to believe that your god YHWH could exist? Not that he does, but that he could?

      This is not like big foot – a large mammal on a planet full of mammals in areas where other mammals easily exist.
      we’re talking about an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being who is not part of the natural world. Those omni- things are important. Why would we even begin to believe that it is possible for such a being to exist?

    • At best, the simulation argument only pushes the question back a level. If we’re living in a computer simulation, then how did the “universe” of our simulators come into existence?

      Similarly, the multiverse does little more than push the question back a level. If one chooses to explain the fine-tuning of physical constants by appealing to a multiverse, then one must inevitably recognize that the “multiverse generator” would itself require fine tuning. http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/stanford%20multiverse%20talk.htm

      But personally, I find it much more agreeable with Occam’s Razor to believe in a single, timeless, spaceless, will-possessing “First Cause”, rather than hypothesizing an infinite (or near-infinite) number of unobservable universes being produced by an ill-defined-yet-logically-necessary multiverse generator.

      “None of what you have posted as evidence for the existence of a god and your Jesus in particular have been enough to convince Jews or Muslims to change their minds.”

      The exact same can be said of the evidence for your atheism, my friend. 🙂

      “The evidence is unconvincing and does not act as strong evidence that gods can exist nor explain why we would use god(s) as explanations for observed phenomena.”

      I appreciate where you’re coming from here. I really do. I experience the same sense of bewilderment when studying the evidence for a naturalistic explanation for our existence. The metaphysical acrobatics that I see naturalists perform in order to justify their worldview is honestly inconceivable to me. But rather than just sitting at our computers proclaiming that the evidence for opposing beliefs is unconvincing, I would be interested in hearing some specifics. What are some of the logical flaws you see with the evidence, specifically? If the logic is sound, and your disagreement lies with the presuppositions of those arguments, then why do you feel that the presuppositions of atheism/naturalism are superior. Given your belief in atheism/naturalism, what grounds do you have for believing that your cognitive faculties are actually reliable?

      “Sagan’s invisible dragon, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Invisible pink unicorns are argument that possess all the facts that you have for your god, yet we have no reason to begin thinking any of them can exist.”

      All of these examples add superfluous descriptions to those characteristics of God that can be logically inferred (timelessness, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.) – and they do so without any attempt at grounding those claims with evidence. You really, REALLY ought to read this: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2008/11/russells-teapot-does-it-hold-water.html

    • Why doesn’t it make sense? If you arbitrarily define god as uncaused and uncreated, why can’t I ask? Where did your god come from?

      What doesn’t make sense is defining your god as existing and being beyond questioning without reason for doing so. That is a ‘because I said so’ mentality.

      The assertion that a god exists is nonsensical. First there is no sound reason to think a god can exist. Second there is no reason to think that a god is uncaused or uncreated. Your god’s origin is not beyond questioning. There is no reason to simply believe that such a god has always existed.

      In just the definition of your god you make many assertions that are without evidence or reason. None of them are beyond questioning. A reasoned logical look at the assertions shows that they cannot all be true, and thus there is no sound reason to think that your assertion about your god’s origin is true. So it is that I ask ‘where did your god come from?’

      Perhaps your god comes from the same place that all the other gods came from?

      Infinity is an interesting concept, especially since it doesn’t exist. If your god has existed for an infinite amount of time, then tomorrow he will have existed for infinity+1 days. Your god comes from somewhere. If WLC is right about his KCA then someone created your god. Who? Why? Where?

      Perhaps your god is like infinity – a concept, not a reality.

  4. Pingback: Ten Questions to Ask a Christian: My Responses | Well Spent Journey

  5. Matt,

    On the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Let’s generalise the KCA:

    P1 If X begins to exist it has a cause
    P2 X begins to exist
    C1 X has a cause

    Valid, so OK. But not SOUND, because it merely asserts P1, which isn’t certain, and P2, which isn’t certain either, when it comes to our universe or some other instances of X.

    Let’s generalise your universe options, filling in a distinction you missed for (1). The KCA concerns entities that have a beginning:

    1a. X exists, had a beginning, and has no cause.
    1b. X exists, always existed, and has no cause.
    2. X exists, can have a cause, which was impersonal.
    3. X exists, can have a cause, which was personal.

    Now, substitute for X, for a number of entities:

    X = this universe. A cyclical expanding and collapsing universe would satisfy 1b, and so would not be addressed by the KCA. Our universe might fit 2, which satisfies the KCA. As for 3, the cause could be a committee of personal creators, perfect ones or imperfect ones, good or evil ones. Your God is just one speculative possibility that the KCA doesn’t favour over any other.

    Let’s try X = your God, the creator of our universe. Yes, we can apply the KCA to God himself. If your God is 1a then the KCA disproves him, never mind his creation of our universe. Of course theists tell us God is 1b, but have no good reason for asserting that over other possibilities. With either 2 or 3 your God isn’t all he’s made out to be, since he himself has a creator of some sorts. Note, though 2 and 3 are themselves reasonable hypotheses, but your God is specifically claimed to be the FIRST cause – 1b. Why?

    What if X = a naturalistic superverse in which our universe does have a beginning and a cause. Then the superverse could be 1b, and so not addressed by the KCA. And if the superverse causes ours: all well and good when considering the KCA. How about 2, which satisfies the superverse being naturalistic and caused by its own impersonal cause – a super-duper-universe; and so on, but still resulting in a beginning for our caused universe. It could be 3 – a superverse created by a personal entity or group of entities, etc.

    So, lots of possibilities, none particualr ‘proved’ by the KCA.

    You say, “… I believe the first explanation can be convincingly ruled out using the Kalam cosmological argument.”

    Well, only 1a can, not 1b. Our universe could be 1b.

    You say, “In order to serve as a valid explanation, this cause must itself be uncaused: God as the Prime Mover.”

    Well, the KCA or any other argument does not show the prime mover is your God, or any god. The KCA only concludes that any X that has a beginning has a cause, if it’s premises are true. It does not address X that does not have a beginning, whether that be God, multiple gods, or impersonal origins, or an eternal cyclical universe.

    And of course the KCA is one big assertion itself. We have no way of knowing if P1 is true. It only appears true within this universe, and even then when we accept causation. Correlation does not imply causation, it is said. Perhaps the universe and everything is just one big set of correlations. Perhaps our limited perception of causation, while useful, does not actually apply ‘out there’ beyond the boundaries of our universe.

    The KCA is hopeless as a theistic argument.

  6. att,

    On Occam’s Razor

    “But personally, I find it much more agreeable with Occam’s Razor to believe in a single, timeless, spaceless, will-possessing “First Cause”, rather than hypothesizing an infinite (or near-infinite) number of unobservable universes being produced by an ill-defined-yet-logically-necessary multiverse generator.”

    What you find agreeable has nothing to do with anything. It is not a matter of agreeability, but logic and data, reason and evidence.

    And Occam’s Razor, as you express it in the above sentence still doesn’t attribute personhood to the first cause, so Occam’s Razor could better be applied to a naturalistic origin. The naturalistic origin, more parsimonious than a theistic one, since it does not require omniscience or any intellect, personhood, intent or purpose, and does not require all the add-ons of Christianity – there simply is no need to be saved from our sins by some trumped up messiah, from a parsimonious perspective. Christianity is such a lot of clutter of myth and magic, totally unevidenced, totally contradictory to known science.

    Unparsimonious doesn’t even begin to describe the nonsense that is Christianity. You only have to look at what goes on in the Vatican. What is all that wealth and pontification adding to description of how reality is? It’s the living embodiment of a fantasy novel; a realistic screen set that out-does Hollywood.

    Sticking with your statement on Occam, let’s simplify it:

    “I find it more agreeable to believe in a single, timeless, spaceless, will-possessing “First Cause”, rather than hypothesizing an ill-defined-yet-logically-necessary multiverse generator.”

    But your God IS an ill-defined-yet-logically-necessary multiverse generator, if there are multiverses (or an ill-defined-yet-logically-necessary universe generator if there is only this one universe). An ill-defined-yet-logically-necessary N-verse generator (N >= 1) is just what your God is. This brings us to another point you make in comments:

    “The exact same can be said of the evidence for your atheism, my friend.”

    The general point made by theists is that, well, atheism can’t be proved.

    Yes, indeed. But we can go further than that. None of what any of us has said about any of the universe origins business is enough to convince with absolute certainty that any of it is TRUE, in some idealistic logical sense.

    And, what is significant in this context of uncertainty is the following: with such uncertainty on all our parts what would cause us to pray to, submit to, persecute-in-the-name-of, pontificate-on-sin-in-the-name-of, our specific origin speculation? Of course atheists precisely do not perform any of these daft behaviours. Atheism is based on a far more parsimonious interpretation of observations, in that it does not assert all the magic powers of some God, or all the unnecessary personal interactions he is supposed to have with humans, all of which in turn require a heck of a lot of tortuous theology to explain why assertion does not fit observation.

    But, even after all that, Occam’s Razor is a heuristic that sometimes works for us here on earth, but it is not a generally applicable rule, or law of the universe, and there sure isn’t any way of saying whether it applies in the matter of universe creation or not.

    Occam’s Razor fails utterly as an aid to theism.

  7. Matt

    On free will.

    “Anyway, it would seem that the belief in free will actually entails the belief in uncaused causes.”

    I don’t have a problem with the possibility of uncaused causes as such, since we don’t really understand causation. Our universe may be caused or not. If it’s caused, then the causing source may be uncaused – without it necessarily being purposeful, or if purposeful it need not be interested in us. We might be the unfortunate waste product of some other aspect of the universe that a creator is interested in.

    But in all our use of causation there is enough correlation between how our will results from events in the physical brain that if causation is to be taken seriously here on earth, then the will is caused: human behaviour is caused by the physical events in the brain and is not free of those causes.

    “Given a belief in free will, we have grounds for believing that a timeless and spaceless Entity, possessing will, could indeed fill the role of Prime Mover. This Entity – God – provides the ontologically prior “cause” for the universe. This leads us to conclude option 3: “the universe had a cause, which was personal”.”

    No. Believing in free will does not mean we have it. It just seems like we have it. On closer inspection there’s better reason and evidence to think it an illusion. But even if we had free will that would only be one instance of free will, from which we might infer the possibility of a free willed timeless spaceless entity, but it would not demostrate that there is such an entity. There are other possible ontological prior causes for our universe, if it needs a prior cause at all. So no, you cannot conclude 3, that the universe had a personal prior cause, no matter how much you want to believe it.

    “For the determinist, free will is an illusion. All of our thoughts and actions are the inevitable result of physical events. Given this view, it makes sense to ask the question, “If God caused the universe to exist, then what caused God to exist?” The entire concept of a Prime Mover seems preposterous, because the determinist has no precedent for believing in uncaused causes.”

    Well, the deterministic argument is used to show the impossibility of free will, if determinism holds. And then we can add the indeterminisms we experience: the sheer complexity that makes the universe too difficult for us to spot any determinism, if that’s how the universe is; quantum indeterminacy, as experiments appear to show is the case. These do not help the notion of free will. Free will is an entirely separate notion incompatible with all aspects of the world as we discover it.

    But outside our universe, as we contemplate all the possibilities, uncaused causes are just as available to atheists, as metaphysical concepts, as they are to theists. It is only within this universe, where causation appears to hold, that the only sensible inference from all we know is that free will is an illusion. There is nothing that we know of that stops an atheist speculating on many explanations for the origins of the universe, caused or uncaused, and if caused, then caused by purposeful intellect or as a consequence of eternal natural forces.

    Free will does you no favours. There could be a intellect that is simulating some model of his, using our physical universe, whereby we mistakenly think we have free will, and yet we don’t, whereby we are of no interest to this intellect, whereby it is not listening to your prayers.

    It strikes me as rather foolish, to invent your own creator, captor, puppet master, to whom you submit, to whom you look for solutions. Even astrology seems a safer bet. At least the sun and moon have had far clearer influences on human life, in life’s creation, life’s cycles – why not worship them, why not impart personhood on them? That’s how silly it seems to atheists, that you should impart intellect, purpose, will, on some unknown entity, and then pray to it.

  8. As long as you can accept that it is possible for there to be a spiritual reality, you can easily see there can be an uncaused cause. Remember, atheists were willing to call the Universe uncaused until, logic, and truth demolished that absurdity.
    There cannot be a physical uncaused C. That is obvious to the unbiased mind. So we know its spiritual and we know its eternal..timeless. its illogical to ask what caused an eternal God, just as its illogical to ask what caused the uncaused cause.
    The simple fact is atheists have to deny freewill, love, sacrifice, reasoning, probability, the definition of Nothing, that DNA is a code, claim Time is illusion, and must essentially believe in Magic for us to be in existence. Theism has explainitory power..atheism just denies that we are even real. Look, they are dysfunctional weirdos who fit the profile of a serial killer and a sociopath. it simply makes no sense trying to refute misfits who deny they even real.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s